It may well be true that the Schindlers are engaged in fantasy. I don’t know them.
Certainly this ought to be a private matter, not the subject of political grandstanding.
I simply find it disturbing that my rights as a parent are completely sublimated when my child gets married. That the people I love most could be beyond my help is frightening. If Michael Schiavo wants to move on, fine. Nobody can blame a young man for wanting to live his life. Why not let her parents care for their daughter?
Anyone have any info on this nurse who filed an affadavit, testifying that Michael refused therapy, kept asking, “When is the bitch going to die?” and refused to let them place a towel in Terri’s fist so her nails wouldn’t dig into her palm? He also supposedly bragged about how rich he was going to be when “the bitch” finally died.
Obviously, the judge discounted her affadavit, but I’m interested in knowing the backstory.
Because that’s the law. Remember, the bride is “given away” by her parents during the ceremony. How many adult children out there are on the outs with their parents? I know I would be highly upset if my mother, to whom I haven’t spoken to in 15 years, suddenly became in charge of my medical care instead of my husband.
Once you’re married, I think your spouse becomes your next of kin automatically. Hell, if you’re married, you can’t even buy a house without both of you being on the title.
Unless they can prove Michael is an unfit guardian, which they have not been able to do, Michael has the final say-so.
We’re not arguing about the law in the abstract, we’re aguing about it in the specific…and the law cannot be tailored to specific individuals.
I don’t know what this is supoosed to mean. Are you saying we should look at things without using our brains? Are we biased towards the rational rather than the stupid? I suppose we are.
“Glimmer of recognition?” What does that mean, medically? Would you take your child’s own wishes into consideration? Do you believe that parents should have more power in these cases than spouses?
Why?
Because they are delusional. They can’t be trusted to do what’s best for her. Why can’t you see that? Do you not believe that there isn’t anything that they wouldn’t do to keep her alive? Is there any procedure they won’t accept?
Part of being a parent is realizing when your job is DONE. Your child leaves and makes their way into the world. If you did your job correctly and barring any unforseen event, they shouldn’t need your help. Part of taking marriage vows, is to accept responsibility for your mate, that’s a choice that people make, to trust another person with their care.
If you’re worried about losing rights, then I suggest involving lawyers, however I fear that a new marriage in which parents are given equal rights to a spouse, won’t survive very long.
Obviously they have to draw a line someplace.
But when you consider that half of all marriages are doomed, it’s difficult to automatically assume that a spouse really has one’s best interests at heart. That’s why I wondered how long they’d been together.
Was Terry’s remark about not wanting life support really a considered decision, or just an off-the-cuff musing? How can we be sure that her husband knows her better than her parents? Particularly when he’s got two children by another woman - clearly at least one part of him has moved on.
As one might infer from my username, I have a child.
Given that this has been a controversy for more than FIVE YEARS, can you explain how you can characterize anyone as looking at the issue as a slam-dunk no-brainer?
What is this, some sort of santimonious grab for moral authority?
I have a one already and another one in the oven. I would not hesitate to pull the tubes if one of my kids was in a PVS.
What makes you think this marriage was doomed?
It’s my understanding that on several occasions she made passing remarks about how she wouldn’t want to be kept alive artificially. Since she was 26 when this happened, and probably (like a lot of 20-somethings) thought she was invincible, there was no written living will, so Michael has to go by what she said, which has been confirmed in court.
Because the court has ruled that he does, and yes, after 15 years, he’s picked up his life again. That doesn’t negate his responsibility to Terri. He’s trying to carry out her wishes.
My twins are awake now, so I’m just going to respond to one part of this.
I think that there’s a really strong tendency among the debating Dopers to operate with the left brain only. If you can’t use symbolic logic to state it, then it doesn’t exist. People here are frequently intolerant of emotions, intuition and religion. You abstract issues to the point where people are beside the point.
There are times when that’s the best way to go.
But it’s not the only way of looking at life, nor is it always the superior way. I’m sick of the constant insistence that it is.
In the photos I’ve seen of Mrs. Schiavo, she appears to be looking into the camera. Whether these are representational of her condition or not, I do not know. How she would feel about her situation is a mystery to me. But your disdain for her parents’ experience is rude; given their Catholicism and the disgust expressed around here towards religion, it’s no surprise.
I’ve got 3, myself…and while it would tear me apart, I’d do what was best for them…and that’s not languishing away in a hospital bed like that.
My Lady and I spoke about this last night…and we both agreed that it would be harder to let each other go than our kids…because at least we could support each other in the event that something happened to the kids. Weird, I guess…but true.
As for the thrust of your question…I think it’s about as useful a tactic as only allowing victims of crime to set penalties. Justice has to be as objective as possible…when you’re too close, that’s very hard to do.
A decision has to be made for her, since she isn’t capable of doing it herself. Clearly then, the thing to do is to consider all the evidence available, including the testimony of Terri’s husband, brother and sister, parents, and brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Like they did five years ago.
I’m sorry, but this post really pisses me off. Your “rights as a parent”? What “rights” are those, once your child has reaced adulthood? As a parent, the whole POINT is to raise your children to LEAVE YOU. You don’t get to have control over their lives forever and ever, most especially not after they’ve reached adulthood and married. Michael Schiavo doesn’t want to “move on,” he wants to honor, as best he can, the vows he made to Theresa when he agreed to be her spouse “until death do they part.” He’s not looking to wash his hands of her and absolve himself of his responsibilities as her husband. He’s looking to honor what he knew to be his wife’s wishes, and turning over her care to her parents who want to defy her wishes would be tantamount to defying them himself. I wholeheartedly respect this man’s honor and integrity and the commitment he has shown his wife in fighting for her rights for the past 15 fucking years, even though he long ago lost the ability to have any sense of a real marriage with her.
I’m beginning to wish people would quit posting about this case until they’ve at least bothered to familiarize themselves with the basic facts.
Terri’s remarks (plural) were made to more than just Michael, and not only did the original judge find the evidence of her statements “clear and compelling,” but the appellate judge concurred, and said that if he’d have been the presiding judge he’d’ve come to the exact same finding.
What does moving on after his wife died have to do with how well he knew her before she died?
I’m willing to bet that the vast majortiy of people who are married know their spouses better than their parents do. My wife knows a lot about me that my parents don’t know and vice versa. Are you trying to say that spouses should never have any legal say over anything, that they should not be legal next of kin and that all guardianship in cases like this should revert to the parents? I think you’re grasping at straws here.
I may not have children, but I do have parents. This is why I have a living will. I love my parents very much, but DeHusband knows and will respect my wishes. My mother never would. I’ve tried to talk to my mother about end needs; she just told me that she would do as she saw fit and it didn’t matter what DeHusband said. That’s when I got a lawyer. In addition to a copy of my living will, each of my doctors has a letter that says that my mother may be notified but she is not to make any decisions about my care.
Because in the state of Florida the spouse is the next of kin. Question the wisdom of that arrangement until the cows come home, and hell I’ll even join you in debate, but the LAW currently on the books is ironclad.
Don’t like it? Lobby to change the law, or make sure you don’t live in Florida. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT attempt to circumvent the law to seek a personal exception. We’re playing with some really bad fire here.
I wouldn’t care if they met and married the day before her cardiac arrest. She chose him. She never chose her parents. She chose her husband.
My husband is my next of kin because I chose him. If I divorced him, I would be un-choosing him. Terri didn’t divorce Michael. Her choice stands.
Go take care of the twins.
You’re looking at a heavily edited videotape supplied by her parents. They are not indicative of any purposeful movements.
For me, their religion is beside the point. The fact that they are completely delusional about their daughter’s chances of recovery is frightening, pitiful, and infuriating. Their ongoing slander of their son-in-law does not help their case.
In answer to a query a page back:
Yes, she has a Foley catheter which drains her bladder continously. They are fairly common in the hospital and most definetly in someone like Terry who has no control over her bodily functions.
AFAIK, ALL major world relgions support the removal of life prolonging measures in cases such as Terry’s. I don’t have a cite, but I do have a colleague–an oncologist who is also Catholic. He states that there is no obstruction on the part of the Church to 1. divorce (annull? I’ll have to ask him) in this case and/or 2. to terminate life support (in this case the feeding tube).
I am not a hospice nurse, so I don’t have alot of indepth knowledge re: the actively dying. I DO know that essentially, the digestive process shuts down and appetite is non-existant, even in alert, fully cerebrally cortexed individuals. It is a way of easing the transition, and from what I understand, it is painless. Terry is beyond pain, anyway, but just so you know…
And the whole parental right thing is too weird–I know I would never marry anyone whose parents wanted in on every health decision/life change. Shit, should we clear how many kids we should have with the inlaws first, too?
I am raising my 3 to be independent, productive members of society (God willing). and when they are all launched-I am done and get to enjoy them as adults.
YMMV.
One of the most infuriating things to me about this case has been the shameless villification of Michael Schiavo. When you actually read the facts rather than the propaganda as to how Michael has conducted himself for the last 15 years, the guy comes off like a fucking saint.